View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

provided by D-Scholarship@Pitt

GENDER EQUITY IN EDUCATION: MEANINGS AND PRACTICES

by

Kate Makely Schechter

B.A., North Carolina State University, 2006

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of

University of Pittsburgh in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

University of Pittsburgh

2013

i
 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

This thesis was presented

By

Kate Makely Schechter

It was defended on

June 5, 2013

and approved by

Jessie Ramey, PhD, Women's Studies

W. James Jacob, PhD, Administrative and Policy Studies

Thesis Advisor, Michael Gunzenhauser, PhD, Administrative and Policy Studies

ii
Copyright © by Kate Makely Schechter

2013

iii
 GENDER EQUITY IN EDUCATION: MEANINGS AND PRACTICES

Kate Makely Schechter, M.A.

University of Pittsburgh, 2013

The purpose of this study is to further understanding regarding how U.S. teachers make
meaning about gender and how their conceptions translate into the classroom environment. The
teachers were also asked to discuss any formal training they had in gender sensitivity, and how
important they consider gender equity to be in today’s educational system. R espondents
included 20 teachers of various age groups and disciplines from Pennsylvania and Maryland,
who participated in in-depth interviews over a four-month data collection period. D ata were
coded using the mixed-methods software Dedoose and then mined for themes with memoing.
Results indicated that teachers perceived gender to be largely a biological distinction between the
sexes, although some included sexual identity and personality traits in their definitions. T he
influence of being a parent and a teacher was found to be especially strong, with parents-as-
teachers holding more sex-based notions of gender than teachers without children. None of the
teachers interviewed had received any formal gender sensitivity training, although all perceived
that such training would be beneficial in their schools. However, issues such as race and poverty
were considered of more critical importance than gender. The data evince a classroom culture in
which gender-differentiated treatment in pedagogical decision-making, including lesson
planning, behavioral direction, and student-teacher interaction is the norm, not the exception.
The findings suggest that the lack of clarity and intentionality in teachers’ conceptions of gender,
combined with the absence of gender sensitivity training, has contributed to an educational
environment in which gender inequities are prevalent.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 OVERVIEW OF THESIS ................................................................................... 2

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT/STATEMENT OF PURPOSE............................. 2

1.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY ................................................................... 3

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ................................................................................. 5

1.5 THESIS STATEMENT ....................................................................................... 5

1.6 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ..................................................................... 6

1.7 THESIS ORGANIZATION ................................................................................ 7

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................ 9

3.0 EXPLANATION OF METHODS AND METHODOLOGY ................................ 21

3.1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK..................................................................... 21

3.2 METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN ........................................... 22

3.3 METHODS ......................................................................................................... 22

3.4 INDICATORS OF QUALITY.......................................................................... 24

3.5 RESEARCHER SUBJECTIVITY ................................................................... 26

3.6 LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................. 27

4.0 FINDINGS .................................................................................................................. 29

4.1 CONCEPTIONS OF GENDER ....................................................................... 29

v
 4.2 GENDER: MEANINGS AND PRACTICES .................................................. 31

4.3 GENDER SENSITIVITY TRAINING ............................................................ 38

4.4 PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE OF GENDER ISSUES IN EDUCATION... 39

4.5 PARENTAL STANDPOINT ............................................................................ 40

5.0 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................... 45

5.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ............................................................................. 45

5.2 IMPLICATIONS ............................................................................................... 47

APPENDIX A : GENDER EQUITY IN EDUCATION INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ......... 52

APPENDIX B : INTRODUCTORY SCRIPT .......................................................................... 54

APPENDIX C: PARTICIPANTS INFORMATION………………………………………..55

APPENDIX D: BOY DESCRIPTORS..................................................................................... 56

APPENDIX E: GIRL DESCRIPTORS ................................................................................... 57

BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................... 58

vi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Issues of Importance Based on Teacher Responses ...................................................... 40

vii
 1.0 INTRODUCTION

In 2009, t he U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, stated, “If half of the world’s population

remains vulnerable to economic, political, legal, and social marginalization, our hope of

advancing democracy and prosperity is in serious jeopardy. The United States must be an

unequivocal and unwavering voice in support of women’s rights in every country, on every

continent” (U.S. Department of State, 2012). While this statement is theoretically aligned with

gender equality policies established by the UN vis-à-vis the Millennium Development Goals and

Education for All, the reality is that gender equality has not even been reached in the United

States, the very country making such a bold declaration.

The 1970s witnessed a great push for social reforms in the United States, including gender

equality reforms in education. While some progress was made, extensive reports by the

American Institutes for Research found that gaps in treatment of boys and girls remained through

the turn of the century, including areas such as subject tracking and standardized-testing

practices (American Association of University Women, 1999). And yet while the more blatant

forms of gender discrimination have been eliminated, societal expectations of gender roles

continue to inhibit both boys and girls today; insidiously, perhaps, as gender discrimination is

often considered to be a relic of a bygone era (Sadker & Zittleman, 2009). However, differential

treatment remains, evidenced in boys’ behavior problems at school and poor grades; and in girls’

low test scores in higher education, plummeting self-esteem, and career tracking.

1
Although it is imperative that women’s rights be addressed on a global level, it is also necessary

to redress continuing gender inequalities at the domestic level. A s schools have long been

considered one of the best arenas to confront social issues, understanding how gender plays out

in the educational system is imperative.

Therefore, the purpose of the study is to further understanding regarding how educators make

meaning about gender. I n both the scholarly and lay community gender is often used

ambiguously; this contributes, perhaps, to misunderstandings and miscommunication when

gender policies are imposed in the school system. P revious researchers have noted the great

disconnection between gender theory and research and education practices, which hinders gender

studies and the application of research findings to the classroom. T herefore, for findings in

educational gender research to be of use, it is imperative that researchers have a d eeper

understanding of how teachers conceive of gender, and how this may translate into the classroom

setting.

1.1 OVERVIEW OF THESIS

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT/STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

Considering the abundance of literature on ( female-oriented) gender equality in education

beginning in the 1970s, to today’s research on the “boys in the back,” it is surprising that there is

a lack of research on teachers’ meaning-making about gender. M any studies have addressed

connections between teacher gender biases and perceptions of specific subject ability (literature,

arts, math, and science), or differential treatment based on gender, but few, if any, analyze how

2
educators define gender, and how they perceive gender equity to be actualized in the classroom

experiences of today.

Thus, this study will address the gap in the literature by e xamining how teachers make

meaning about gender, how they perceive gender to translate into classroom culture, and how

important they consider gender equality measures to be today. T herefore, the study will

contribute to the literature base in several ways. The issues above will provide a useful starting

point for further research as to how to break the disconnection between policy and practice, and

how to generate meaningful discourses about ongoing gender disparities in the classroom.

Hence, gender equality will again be brought to the forefront of discussions in educational

reform, with—hopefully—positive implications for the futures of both girls and boys within the

educational system.

However, it is important to note that the intention of this research study is not to implicate

teachers in being at fault for any ongoing gender discrimination or differential treatment in the

classroom. It is my position that teachers have agency, but are also products of the social,

cultural, and institutional processes that govern the quotidian norms and regulations, especially

as they relate to the education field. The focus on teachers’ perceptions is important here in that

their voices have been relatively unheard in recent studies regarding gender and the classroom,

and is not because they more greatly contribute to gender inequalities.

1.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

There are numerous studies involving gender discrimination in education (Berekashvili, 2012),

including a number of studies regarding teacher perceptions regarding gender-differentiated

3
ability (Riegle-Crumb & Humphries, 2012; Tiedemann, 2000), behavior (Sadker & Zittleman,

2009; Sommers, 2000), and discipline. However, none of these address the basic question: how

do teachers conceive of gender? N or has the issue of gender sensitivity training systemically

been addressed in Western education, although programs offering these services have found to

be successful in developing regions (Unterhalter & North, 2011). As well, a great majority of

recent studies on gender perceptions have used quantitative measures, whereas those concerning

gender-differentiated classroom behaviors have used qualitative or mixed-methods approaches.

Therefore, this study will contribute to the literature base of gender in education in

several ways. F rom a theoretical perspective, the in-depth interviews will provide a greater

depth of understanding teachers’ perspectives, contributing to the generation of meaningful

critical analysis, while also utilizing gender-related questions that previously have not been

addressed by research. Conceptually, by moving from the micro (individual perspective) to the

macro (usefulness of gender sensitivity training and equality programs), the research contributes

to various levels of gender studies. In terms of practical significance, the research examines a

perspective crucial to the development of gender equality through teacher-student influence, yet

has yet to be broached by the research community. As conceived, the study intends to bridge the

gap between gender researchers’ notions of gender equality and development, and those of the

teaching community, from which the values are conveyed to the student population. Finally, this

topic has held personal significance for me ever since my mother encouraged me to read Failing

at Fairness: How America’s Schools Cheat Girls (Sadker & Sadker, 1994) in elementary school,

generating a life-long interest in gender equality studies.

4
 1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Drawing from Mears (2009) and Rubin and Rubin (2012) the key research questions will be:

1) How do teachers in the United States make meaning about gender?

2) How do they perceive these meanings translate into their classroom environment?

3) Do teachers receive gender sensitivity training, in any form, either through their formal

preparation to become an educator or by their employer?

4) Is the issue of gender equality perceived to continue to be relevant in today’s U.S. educational

systems, or are other equality issues considered to be more prominent in the hierarchy of

urgency?

These questions provide the foundation for a study of 20 t eachers from Pennsylvania and

Maryland, in the hopes of uncovering their beliefs about the meaning of gender, and how those

meanings then manifest themselves in the educational environment.

1.5 THESIS STATEMENT

This study proposes that teachers’ conceptions of gender are based on sex differentiation, some

with an unclear conflation of sex and sexual identity factors, leading to a vague and muddled

understanding of gender equality in education. The respondents demonstrated a comfort with

5
gender differentiated treatment in their lesson planning, behavior direction, and student-teacher

interactions, and did not perceive this to be an issue of gender inequality in the classroom. The

teachers interviewed have had no gender sensitivity training, reflecting a turn away from gender

equality measures taken at the administrative levels of education. Thus, the findings highlight a

couple of challenges facing gender researchers and teachers alike: a l ack of clarity and

intentionality in definitions of gender, ongoing gender differentiated treatment within the

educational system, and educators who are ill-equipped to recognize and grapple with gender

inequalities due to lack of training.

1.6 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Based on Conrad and Serlin’s (2011) explanation of epistemologies, I accept the constructivist

understanding of truth, in that it is relative and situated within local contexts. As well, Schacter,

Norman, and Koustall (1998) note, “memory is not a literal reproduction of the past but instead

depends on constructive processes that are sometimes prone to errors, distortions, and illusions”

(p. 289). Thus, I consider reality to be socially and historically constructed and open to

innumerable interpretations; as a researcher, therefore, my task is to discover the lenses through

which the interviewees interpret their realities, and maintain constant vigilance (and

documentation) throughout the data collection process and analysis of my own expectations and

biases.

6
 Theoretically, I align my study with critical theorists who believe in the need to radicalize

and transform what is considered to be objective reality (Freire, 1970). My motivation in the

pursuit of my topic is the discovery and remediation of societal problems (Rubin & Rubin,

2011). In the context of the in-depth interviews provided by educators, I will attempt to discover

the implicit assumptions of gender differences that undergird inequalities in the educational

system.

1.7 THESIS ORGANIZATION

The thesis is organized into the following five sections: Chapter 1 provides an overview of the

study, including a description of the research problem, the significance of the study, the study’s

main purpose, research questions, and theoretical framework.

Chapter 2 consists of the literature review of gender equality studies in education. First,

the review briefly discusses gender theories undergirding the past 30 years of educational

research regarding gender equity in schools. Next, the review will delve into recent studies of

teachers’ perceptions about gender, including: conceptions of innate intellectual abilities and

skills; gender-differentiated behaviors; and subject strengths and weaknesses. Finally, the gap in

the literature is identified after providing the overviews of recent literature on the topic.

Chapter 3 provides the description of the research, including methodology, research plan

rationale, and methods. Drawing primarily from Freire (1970), the conceptual framework for the

study is justified. A brief discussion of the methodologies used for data analysis follows. The

7
chapter concludes with analysis of researcher subjectivity and other limitations the study

presents.

Chapter 4 presents the research findings according to the major themes uncovered during

the data analysis. The first section delves into commonalities held between teachers’ regarding

their meaning making about gender, as well as any glaring outliers. T he second section

discusses trends in teacher beliefs about gender dynamics in the classroom environment, and

their explanations for these patterns. Next, gender training for teachers is addressed, as well as

whether educators find gender equality to remain a relevant topic in education policy today.

Finally, any other major themes that were not intentionally addressed by the research questions

but nevertheless were consistently raised by subjects are discussed.

Chapter 5 of fers a summary of the research findings and conclusions. U sing

triangulation, implications for future studies and practices is addressed, including specific areas

of concern for gender equity practices in the classroom. L imitations of the research

methodology and data analysis are also provided.First paragraph.

8
 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

Considering the import bestowed upon gender equity issues in the international community

within the past decade (with special consideration for gender equity involving the rights of

women and girls), the dearth of literature regarding Western teachers’ perspectives on gender is

surprising. Most literature that emerges from research about Western education has focused

instead on children’s constructions of gender within the school setting, conflating variables

(including gender) that lead to discrimination, the impact of teacher/student gender relations, and

the underachievement of boys. As girls have been outpacing boys in overall grades, Advanced

Placement courses, and tertiary graduation rates, this lack of research on gender equity—at least

as it pertains to girls—is not too surprising.

Yet even in developed countries, gender equity has yet to be reached. D ue to horizontal

segregation, women are still relegated to the economic sidelines because the professions that tend

to draw women denote lesser social and monetary benefits than those of men. Even when

women are employed in the same occupation (with the same educational background) as their

male counterparts, they are paid significantly less (Sadker & Zittleman, 2009). Women still

shoulder greater household burdens, even when they work full-time. Why, then, has the

scholarly community turned away from the issue of gender equity in the classroom—as it

pertains to educators’ beliefs—when the socialization process during education has been proven

9
to be of great importance in shaping students’ construction of gender? And why have the voices

of the educators remained relatively unheard in the research studies?

There are a number of difficulties in the assessment of these questions. First, the term “gender”

is used in various meanings throughout the policies of international and domestic organizations,

at times interchangeably with “women” or “sex” (Glasser & Smith III, 2008; Hales, 2007). And

although gender is the focus of this study, its intersectionality with other factors, both individual

and collective, cannot be ignored. As noted by Hancock (2007), “gender never really operates

independently from other aspects of political life, and so it is misleading to think of gender as an

autonomous category of analysis” (p. 229). As well, there is no standard, universal definition of

gender equality in education, which affects both measurements in practice, and the ability to

synthesize the literature (Subrahmanian, 2005).

Ideally, this review will use the term “gender” to refer solely to the socially constructed

behaviors and roles prescribed to the sexes by a given society, in accordance with the definition

delineated by the World Health Organization. In actuality, however, this study was conceived

and implemented using “gender” and “sex” interchangeably, in a similar fashion as other authors

in the educational research field, wherein “gender has largely eclipsed sex…as the preferred term

for naming differential aspects of male and female experience, thinking, and practice” (Glasser

& Smith III, 2008, p. 3 49). B ased on t he work of Aikman, Halai, and Rubagiza (2011), the

terms gender equality and gender equity will be used interchangeably, recognizing that the

former is often considered a normative trait, while the latter is associated with the social,

political, and institutional barriers in various contexts. However, it should be noted that many

scholars delineate between the two definitions of equality and equity in their writing and

research.

10
Recent Theoretical Underpinnings of Gender Studies

There have been, historically, multiple and varied attempts to discern explanations for the so-

called differences between the sexes, and these debates are ongoing today in the form of

polemics regarding gender identity, attitudes, and stereotypes. T he explanations for these

phenomena have fallen under three categories: biological, psychological, and sociological, and

have generally shared the limelight. How gender is accepted to be understood by the media, the

scientific community, and society plays an important role in its manifestations within education.

The male-female continuum of the sex role theory, dependent largely on each gender’s “internal

psychological organization” matching the “external behavioral manifestation” fell out of favor in

the 1970s due to its binary construction of gender roles, positioning of “natural” gender

behaviors, and its incomplete theoretical structuring of roles: gender was not perceived as being

constructed in relation to another gender, but as a separate entity in and of itself (Kimmel, 2004).

However, the term “gender role” is still widely used in discussions regarding the effects of

gender stereotypes today.

The social-psychological explanation of sex roles was supplanted with sociological theories,

which posit “gender differentiation as the result of a social construction process, and argue that

peoples’ conceptions about gender are derived from internalized sex roles and stereotypes, often

perpetuated to justify gender inequalities, occupational stratification or discrimination” (Todor,

2010, p. 45) . G ender differences as they pertain to inequalities are extremely important in

sociological theories, as they highlight social and institutional power structures; as K immel

(2004) states, “it is impossible to explain gender without adequately understanding power—not

because power is the consequence of gender difference, but because power is what produces

11
those gender differences in the first place” (p. 99). S ociological explanations for gender

differences are still widely used today, often coinciding with biological and psychological

theories as well.

Feminism, too, has had a major role in shaping the scholarly discourse concerning gender equity.

The three “waves” of feminism—occurring at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, the 1960s

and 1970s, and the current state—each has offered a different perspective to research regarding

power relations and subordination (Aitchison, 2005). Contemporary feminism, informed largely

by postmodernism, poststructuralism, and postcolonialism, serves an important function in

today’s discussions regarding gender equity due to its emphasis on human agency, “structure as

process,” and “the ways in which power is exercised within everyday structures and discourses

in order to maintain regimes of truth…[refuting] the notion of single theory or ‘grand narrative’

capable of explaining social, cultural, and power relations throughout time and across space”

(Aitchison, 2005, p. 431).

The thesis forthcoming is grounded in critical theory, which undergirds most feminist theories

(Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Critical theory rejects objectivity in research, though its ontology relies

more on historical realities of oppression than the locally constructed realities of a constructivist

might (Conrad & Serlin, 2011). Rubin and Rubin (2012) note, “rather than advocating neutrality,

critical researchers emphasize action research, arguing that research should redress past

oppression; bring problems to light; and help minorities, the poor, the powerless, and the

silenced” (p. 20). As such, the impetus driving the thesis research is undergirded by the need to

address past and present inequalities within the educational system.

Although many of these guiding concepts manifest themselves in some form throughout today’s

research, few are used in a concrete fashion (Acker, 1988). Ostensibly, theories and practices are

12
disconnected from each other; feminist studies rarely inform classroom practices, and vice versa,

leading to a continuation of disparate discourses regarding gender equitable classroom practices

(Sanders, 2000). However, understanding teachers’ perceptions about gender allows for better

insight as to the sociocultural factors that still hinder progress towards equity in education, and

therefore must be pursued.

Teacher Perceptions

Since the 1970s, there has been a growing body of scholarly research regarding gender-based

differences in classroom experiences. These studies have focused on a myriad of subjects, one

of which being teacher values, procedures, and expectations, and how these influence the

educational experiences of boys and girls. M ore recent studies have concentrated on teacher

perceptions regarding gender differences in certain circumstances: in the subjects of math,

science, and literature; regarding beliefs about inherent abilities; and in terms of

underachievement.

Although there has been less recent research on teacher perceptions of gender than there was in

the past, the work is still extremely important, as the educational field, and educators themselves,

reflect many social and cultural beliefs about gender (Sanders, 2000; Todor, 2010). S tudies

show that students, especially female students, are more likely to internalize teacher beliefs and

attitudes into their own social identity, beliefs, goals, and personal behaviors (Sadker &

Zittleman, 2009; Sanders, 2000; Todor, 2010). F or girls as well, subject selection is highly

motivated by teacher preference (Sanders, 2000). T herefore, understanding the nature of

teachers’ gender perceptions and expectations is paramount in the education field.

Research has found that teacher attitudes towards gender manifest themselves during daily

teacher-student interactions, which generally has a bias in favor of male students (Berekashvili,

13
2012; Sadker & Zittleman, 2009). Studies of classroom dynamics show that white males receive

the greatest portion of a teacher’s attention, followed by males of color, white females, and

females of color (Sanders, 2000). Other studies have shown that the praise given to males is

more enthusiastic than that given to females (Acker, 1988). As Berekashvili (2012) notes:

The problem is that when differentiations (manifested in attitudes and behavior) stem from

gender stereotypes, they reflect existing gender orders…where value is placed upon masculine

traits and differences are represented in a h ierarchical way, and where girls are given a

psychologically and socially unfavorable position. (p. 40)

Teacher Perceptions and Subject Content

The influence of gender stereotypes in math education has been well documented. G enerally,

research has held that in the subject of mathematics, gender stereotypes affect the perceptions of

a student's competency (Riegle-Crumb & Humphries, 2012; Tiedemann, 2002). The pervasive

belief that males have an inherent superiority in the field of mathematics has been documented

by researchers in the fields of sociology, education, and psychology, and all have found that

these stereotypical beliefs have been internalized by female students, to the detriment of not only

their math performances, but also their self-esteem and sense of competency in the classroom

(Riegle-Crumb & Humphries, 2012).

The pervasiveness of gender stereotypes in mathematics, unfortunately, has not been confined to

Western nations, as research has found similar beliefs to be held across the world. Of the many

effects of these stereotypes, beliefs include:

Males hold more functional beliefs about themselves as learners of mathematics than do females.

Gender differences are more prevalent among old students and seem to increase as st udents

14
progress through school. Compared to males, females are less likely to attribute mathematical

success to ability and failure to lack of effort, and are more likely to attribute failure to lack of

ability. M athematics continues to be viewed as a male domain, more so by m ales than by

females...[and] external influences can differentially influence students' beliefs: for example,

parents, peer group, socialisation patterns, and the media. (Tiedemann, 2002, p. 50)

Thus, females are discouraged from pursuing mathematics due to negative messages received

from various external influences that over time become internalized in their concepts of personal

ability.

Though teachers continue to hold to the gender stereotype that male students are more talented

than their equally achieving female students, and that failure among female students is due to

lack of ability rather than lack of effort (Tiedemann, 2002), recent studies have found that

teacher bias regarding gender varies depending on t he performance level of students (Riegle-

Crumb & Humphries, 2012; Tiedemann, 2002). A lthough gender bias has been found to

intersect with the race/ethnicity of students (to the distinct disadvantage of white females more

so than any other group), in the higher-level classes, perceptions of gender differences between

white males (consistently the group perceived to be most adept at math by teachers) and minority

females were diminished (Riegle-Crumb & Humphries, 2012). S imilarly, research has found

that gender stereotypes have a greater hold on teacher perceptions in low to medial performing

students, but not on high achieving students (Tiedemann, 2002).

Other subjects, such as science, craft, and technology, which are considered to be masculine

domains, have been shown to offer resistance to gender equitable classrooms. R esearch

conducted by interview with teachers of these subjects found that the (mostly male) teachers

were reluctant to see equal opportunity initiatives go into action, believing that sex differences

15
were natural, and that any positive initiatives for girls would result in discrimination against boys

(Acker, 1988). I n science classes taught by males, boys receive two-thirds of interaction time

with the teacher whereas girls only receive one third of the time; however, in classes taught by

women, the interaction ratio differs: 51% of the teacher’s attention is given to males, and 49% to

females (Duffy, Warren, & Walsh, 2001).

Teachers also perceive gender differences in learning skills. G irls are considered to be more

competent in skills necessary to completing a task, including observing, communicating, use of

materials and equipment, and measuring, whereas boys are perceived to be more skilled in tasks

that demand abstract abilities: analyzing, hypothesizing, interpreting, and questioning (Tatar &

Emmanuel, 2001). S imilarly, Berekashvili (2012) found that teachers scored males higher in

skills associated with intelligence and originality, including generalization, quick counting and

answer, and originality. On the other hand, teachers perceived girls to be more apt in reading,

writing, and creative use of materials (Berekashvili, 2012). Although girls consistently receive

higher grades than boys, boys are generally considered the best overall students (Sadker &

Zittleman, 2009; Tatar & Emmanuel, 2001).

These perceptions about innate learning abilities affect today’s discussions regarding

underachieving students. What some have called the modern day “crisis” facing male students

includes disciplinary problems, high referral rates to special education, and poor scholastic

achievement (Sadker & Z ittleman, 2009). G irls, as a whole, are not facing similar problems;

thus, a discussion of male “underachievement” has ensued among policy makers and the media.

Yet some social scientists and researchers have pointed out the inherent gender bias in the

“underachievement” crisis: the sociocultural perception that boys are inherently intelligent but

16
inclined to misbehave leads to their “underachievement,” whereas girls, who are perceived to be

naturally diligent, may fail because they are not smart enough. As Jones and Myhill (2004) state:

If underachievement is concerned with unrealized potential rather than any lack of ability, then it

is a m atter of concern where teachers look for potential. If teachers are more likely to see

potential in boys, then boys are more likely than girls to be designated as underachievers. Thus

poor performance in boys might be viewed as caused by underachievement, while poor

performance in girls might be viewed as low achievement. (p. 531)

Therefore, discussions regarding gender equity and teacher perceptions must be taken on in order

to address both the symptoms and causes of gender differentiated educational failures.

Effects of Gender Stereotypes and Teacher Biases

These biases and stereotypes are in turn reflected in discrepancies between male/female student

aspirations, evaluations, and achievements (Tatar & Emmanuel, 2001). Gender stereotypes are

pervasive throughout the education system and affect both girls and boys, though the effects are

often gradual. Both sexes are presented with different social and cultural expectations in school,

with mixed results.

While math and science are considered predominantly male subjects and literature and the arts

are considered the domain of female students, these generalizations actually have little factual

grounding in reality in the early years of children’s education, but become more evident in the

progressing years of school (Todor, 2010). S ome studies have actually shown that girls enter

primary school with more positive inclinations towards math than their male counterparts, but as

stereotypes about math and science being “male domains” becomes more apparent, their positive

attitude declines (Ma, 2012).

17
As female students internalize teachers’ “attribution bias”—attributing male success in

“masculine” subjects to innate talents and ability, while female success in the same subjects is

attributed to hard work and perseverance—they become more likely to abandon difficult subjects

for those that they perceive to be easier (Todor, 2010). Male students predominantly populate

high-level mathematics and physics classes whereas female students tend to choose humanities

and “domestic sciences,” although course placement cannot be explained by differential ability

but by gender-stereotyped images of the subjects (Tatar & Emmanuel, 2001).

Gender segregation by subject is carried over into future occupational holdings. Women

continue to lag behind in representation on legislative bodies, and equal gender ratios are usually

the result of national quotas (Sadker & Zittleman, 2009). M en occupy the majority of civil,

electrical, and electronic engineer posts, as well as positions involving high levels of

mathematics and science training (Sadker & Zittleman, 2009).

In testing as well, girls enter primary school on par or ahead of their male counterparts in most

subjects; in the United States, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) shows

that girls begin school testing higher in math, civics, verbal ability, and reading and writing, with

boys scoring higher only in science; by twelfth grade, however, boys surpass girls in the NAEP’s

measurements of math, science, and social sciences (Sadker & Zittleman, 2009). Perhaps more

importantly, however, is that girls trail boys in standardized testing such as the PSAT, SAT,

LSAT, and GRE, which determine scholarship status and entry into undergraduate and graduate

schools, thus affecting the likelihood of future successes in academia and the occupational arena

(Sadker & Zittleman, 2009).

18
Discussion

Although studies have found that teachers perceive gender equality to be a non-issue in

education (Acker, 1988; Tatar & Emmanuel, 2001), or make claims about holding egalitarian

gender attitudes in the classroom (Erden, 2004; Sadker & Zittleman, 2009), the results of

research have found otherwise. As discussed above, it is clear that teachers both interact with the

genders differently and perceive them differently.

Boys get more interaction time, positive feedback, and reprimand; they are considered to be

more able to handle abstract, logical, mental work; perceived to be innately better at math,

science, craft, and technology; and are also considered less socio-emotionally mature, which may

contribute to their lions’ share of disciplinary actions (Jones & Myhill, 2004; Todor, 2010).

Girls, on the other hand, receive less attention and are given less meaningful praise; they are

considered tidier, persevering, caring, emotional, and more skilled with languages and arts

(Sadker & Zittleman, 2009; Todor, 2010).

Clearly, the discrepancies in teacher behaviors towards boys and girls continue to affect student

academic performance, self-esteem, behavior, and even future career choices. Teachers’ lower

expectations for girls and differential classroom treatment have dire consequences for their

aspirations outside of traditional gender roles (Berekashvili, 2012). Students’ beliefs about their

competencies stem from previous performances in similar activities and from teacher and parent

feedback (Todor, 2010). Since teachers reflect the social and cultural gender mores of a region,

addressing the sociocultural factors that influence teacher perceptions and attitudes is crucial to

developing gender-equitable classrooms.

Although the situation may appear bleak, progress through gender equality initiatives appear to

have made some headway. In countries such as the United States and Australia, which have had

19
stronger central government support and funding for gender initiatives, greater strides have been

made in generating teacher support for gender-equality practices (Acker, 1988). R aising

awareness of the effects of attribution bias and the influence teacher and parent attitudes have on

students’ competency beliefs is essential to ameliorating the gender performance gaps in schools.

But even more importantly, perhaps, is to acknowledge the fact that gender equity is still a major

issue in Western education, and one that affects both girls and boys. O nly when teachers,

parents, administrators, and students are all able to openly recognize gender inequalities will any

progress towards building a gender-equitable education be made.

20
 3.0 EXPLANATION OF METHODS AND METHODOLOGY

3.1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The conceptual framework undergirding the data interpretation is based on critical theory, which

is considered a variation of the naturalist or constructivist paradigm (Rubin & Rubin, 2009). The

importance of the conceptual framework to research design and implementation is that it aids in

the development of the research questions and structure of the study (Conrad & Serlin, 2011),

while also allowing for a deeper understanding of the assumptions inherent within the

methodology selected (Rubin & Rubin, 2009).

Critical theory poses that through critical analysis, one may be literally and figuratively

liberated. As Freire (1970) states, “to surmount the situation of oppression, people must first

critically recognize its causes, so that through transforming action they can create a n ew

situation, one which makes possible the pursuit of a fuller humanity” (p. 29). Thus, this research

is guided by the understanding that research should be used to highlight inequalities, so that

findings may be acted upon in a reality that is historically constructed and locally situated.

21
 3.2 METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN

The purpose of this study is to understand how teachers make meaning about gender, how they

perceive gender differences translate into the classroom environment, and whether gender equity

is considered to be an important issue in education today. Another research goal underlying

these questions is to understand how teachers came by t hese definitions or interpretations:

through socialization, teacher training, classroom experiences, or something else entirely.

The context of gender meaning making necessitates a methodology that allows for nuances of

explanation by both the research subjects and the researcher. T hus, qualitative research in the

form of responsive in-depth interviews provides the best methodological framework, as noted by

Rubin and Rubin (2009), “if you are looking for shades of meaning or want to explore the

positions between extremes…in-depth interviewing makes sense” (p. 50). T he use of semi-

structured interviews allows for the study to maintain topical focus, while also generating enough

freedom between the researcher and the interviewees to elaborate on themes that arise during the

interview process.

3.3 METHODS

The primary source of data was provided through semi-structured interviews with a

population of 20 teachers from Pennsylvania and Maryland. Interviews were conducted one-on-

22
one, with the exception of two group interviews that were done at the behest of the subjects

involved due to their time constraints. Interviews generally lasted from thirty minutes to a hour-

and-a-half (see Appendix A for sample script). The sample was drawn based on convenience, but

every attempt was made to include subjects from various school disciplines, educational

backgrounds, and experience levels in hopes of counterbalancing any sampling bias. Teachers

from various subjects and school levels were interviewed, including: i nfant to preschool;

elementary school, middle school, and high school; art; physical education, reading and literacy;

mathematics; and humanities. All teachers had five or more years of teaching experience in

order to facilitate their ability to answer questions about teaching experiences; however, their

professional training ranged from certifications in their subject to Master’s degrees. The male to

female ratio was 1 to 4, in the hope of using a sample that was representative of the larger

teacher populations’ sex ratio.

As the population was drawn from a co nvenience sample, the participants were either

known to me or introduced to me through the snowball sampling method. They were each

provided with an introductory script informing them of the purpose of the study, methodology,

types of questions being asked, and means of confidentiality before providing their consent to

participate in the study (see Appendix B for sample script). None of the participants’ identifying

information was recorded, so all of the interview data remained anonymous throughout. As the

interviews were recorded for later transcription, the participants were also informed of this

measure before recording and provided consent. Interviews took place in locations of

convenience to the subject, and therefore varied. H owever, the main locations of choice were

coffee shops, staff lounges, and homes. N one of the participants was given material

compensation for their participation in the study.

23
The interviews were transcribed and then checked for accuracy by the participants to ensure their

true intentions were being conveyed in the documentation process. The transcriptions were then

coded for themes by focusing in on the data to recognize patterns and then selectively funneling

those patterns into relevant themes and relationship. T he data was then organized using the

mixed-methods software Dedoose. O nce saturation point was reached, the analysis portion of

the research ended and I began the process of documenting my findings.

The themes that evolved from the data analysis were drawn from two major sources: the

literature guiding the thesis work, and patterns discovered throughout the interview process. Of

these, the latter was more difficult to address for the sample was intentionally drawn from

various teaching backgrounds, which led to data that showed a wide variety of experiences with

the topic of study.

3.4 INDICATORS OF QUALITY

The indicators of quality used in this study vary from those used in quantitative studies.

Typically, quantitative studies depend on validity, reliability, and objectivity to measure quality.

However, for this study, I attempted to establish the trustworthiness of the study by

demonstrating that the findings were credible, transferable, dependable, and confirmable (Conrad

& Serlin, 2011).

Of the traditional indicators of quality, two were omitted from this study: reliability and

generalizability. D ue to the qualitative methodology selected, these two gauges were not

24
considered as relevant, as the subjects and researchers were conveying their own interpretations

of reality throughout the research process. Instead, credibility—or accuracy and authenticity—

was used in their stead. According to Conrad and Serlin (2011) credibility implies that findings

will be considered accurate by the researcher, subjects, and readers of the study in question. In

order to ensure credibility, participants checked transcriptions to confirm that the intended

meanings were conveyed to the researcher. D ata from interviews was also paired with

information provided through other sources, including literature on the topic and those provided

by the schools in which the teachers worked. T hese measures were taken to guarantee the

standards of credibility—or its parallel, internal validity—were met.

According to the critical theory approach guiding this study, the application of research is

important, and thus, so is transferability, i.e., the information provided may illuminate another

situation or context (Conrad & Serlin, 2011). Therefore, I provided a thick description of the

setting, processes, outcomes, and findings of the study in order to provide another researcher the

context of transferability. A s well, Conrad and Serlin (2011) note, “stating the theoretical

parameters of the research and thus connecting it with a body of theory allows those who make

policy or design research to determine whether the findings of a case study are applicable and

whether they are transferable” (p. 272).

Although qualitative research does not attempt to control the conditions under which the research

is taking place in order to produce reliability, dependability remains an important quality

indicator. Dependability in this study is ensured by pr oviding a detailed explanation of the

research methodology, methods, biases, ethical concerns, and descriptions of how any of the

latter threats might be resolved within the research process (Conrad & Serlin, 2011).

25
Confirmability is the final quality indicator used in this thesis research, and simply refers to the

ability of another to confirm the data collected during the process. In this sense, confirmability

refers to the steps taken throughout the writing process that demonstrate that the data collected

was done so in a manner that avoided producing biased interpretations in the future stages of

research. T hus, the process of documenting self-reflections, method selection, and alternative

conclusions provided a means of proving confirmability.

3.5 RESEARCHER SUBJECTIVITY

As previously discussed, in this study I operated under the constructionist assumption that reality

is socially constructed and open to various interpretations; thus, there is no one objective truth,

and also no assertion that the researcher will be able to maintain objectivity throughout the study.

As Mears (2009) notes, “it is not possible to guarantee absolute objectivity in research, for

indeed, whatever the topic, it would seem that the researcher must feel some subjective affinity

to that area of inquiry; otherwise, the matter would hold no appeal” (p. 4).

Being aware of my subjectivity remained imperative throughout the research process. H aving

some background in qualitative field methods, I understood that as a qualitative researcher, my

history, studies, personality, and biases were all brought to the interviews and my interpretation

of the interviewee’s responses. Although I did not maintain that objectivity was paramount, or

even possible, it was important that I continue to reflect on my own subjectivities throughout the

process, so as not to lose sight of the goal: to aptly interpret other educators’ understandings of

gender, gender dynamics in the classroom, and the importance of gender equality in education.

26
 3.6 LIMITATIONS

There were numerous limitations that were confronted throughout the research process; some

were inherent to the methodology selected, while others were due to time and environmental

factors. However, every effort was made to counteract the limitations posed by the study.

One of the limitations inherent to qualitative research is the fact that the epistemology of

multiple truths generates results that are locally situated and open to interpretation by the

researcher and the subjects, making generalizability and replicability nearly impossible (Conrad

& Serlin, 2011). However, it is generally recognized that neither of these are goals in qualitative

studies, and therefore is of little practical concern. T he subjectivity that is intrinsic to the

methodology creates results that cannot be considered entirely objective. Scholars familiar with

the qualitative methods recognize this, and while it may not meet positivist standards, the quality

indicators of credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability all adhere to the

accepted standards by the qualitative community.

Limited scope was also an issue with the selection of the in-depth approach. The nature of the

qualitative interviews allowed for a greater amount of probing into the issue of gender meaning

and making in the classroom context, but only in the contexts provided by the subjects. Ideally,

the qualitative interviews would have been combined with a quantitative questionnaire reaching

a larger body of subjects to provide a broader view of the issue, but this was not possible due to

financial and time limitations.

Another limitation was with the sample group. Due to financial and time constraints, the sample

was selected based on convenience, and was relatively small in size. However, sample bias

should not be an issue in terms of the sample demographics, as the sample group mostly

27
consisted of white females, consistent with the target population (although 15% of the sample

were made up of minorities, and 25% were male). T he sample group also was comprised of

individuals who had taught for five or more years, as to ensure that they had a wealth of

experiences as an educator to draw upon during the interviews.

However, qualitative research provides innumerable benefits as well. T he rapport

between the participants and I generated an environment in which a greater amount of personal

background and beliefs were able to emerge. T hus, the level of nuance provided by i n-depth

interviews allowed for some unforeseen topics to come to light during the data collection

process, uncovering themes that might have otherwise gone unseen through the use of

quantitative methods.

28
 4.0 FINDINGS

4.1 CONCEPTIONS OF GENDER

The first question asked of participants was how they, as teachers, conceived of “gender.”

By and large, the majority of the teachers participating in the study perceived “gender” to be

synonymous with “sex.” Of the 20 participants interviewed, all of the teachers first cited gender

as being biological, physiological, or relating to the male/female binary; only four of the

interviewees expanded upon their definitions of gender to include other factors that contributed

to their conception of “gender.”

The four expanded definitions of gender included: sexual identity, non-binary identifiers,

including sexual identity, individual identity, and personality. When these teachers spoke about

individual identity and personality, they explained that “gender” was part of our socialization

into Western society and a means through which society categorizes individuals based on sex,

which becomes incorporated into the individual’s larger personality and identity schema. These

explanations demonstrate a fuller comprehension of how gender and sex are intertwined in

Western culture and society and how this labeling affects the lived experiences of individuals

throughout their lives and education.

29
 Some respondents also noted gender’s intersectionality with other identity factors, but

seemed to place gender at the forefront in terms of the initial “labeling” done by society. One

interviewee noted: “it’s one of the first labels that you’re given in your life. B efore they’re

[children] labeled anything else, black, white, Asian, whatever it is, you’re a girl or a boy…it’s a

label that society puts on you. Your gender”(Participant #8, March 10, 2013). In a darkly telling

comment about the intersectionality of gender and race, another interviewee stated “my

aunt…she would always tell me that I had two strikes against me: t he first was being born

female, the second was being born black. In that order” (Participant #10, March 10, 2013).

The use of gender as a form of labeling was also seen as being related to sexual identity,

although only one participant specifically cited sexuality identity as being synonymous with

gender. Interestingly, one of the male physical education teachers had an extensive knowledge

of the role of sexual identity in sports, from the chromosome tests of the Cold War to current

NCAA sexual identity rules (including stipulations about how long a person must be undergoing

hormone therapy before being allowed to compete as a different sex), but did not consider sexual

identity to be tied to his conceptualization of gender. However, when pressed for a more

concrete explanation of gender, the participant explained:

Well I definitely think you’re born…with a certain lean one way or the other, and most

people are clearly born as a male or female, and some are born as a male or female sexually, and

I think you’re definitely born…you know we had kids in kindergarten that you could see were

more male or female. (Participant #11, Mar. 30, 2013)

Thus, his explanation of “gender” conflates the notions of biological sexes and sexual

identity, although he did not acknowledge the latter in his meaning-making about gender.

30
 Discussions that began with analyses of conflating variables, such as gender and race, as

seen above, or others that delved into sexuality and identity, however, quickly became

conversations of the “sexes.” Clearly then, although some of the teachers did perceive “gender”

to be more involved than simply a differentiation between the sexes, the term still emerges

repeatedly as being undergirded by binary, biological distinctions.

Thus, the broader explanations of gender appeared to be more of a comprehension of an

abstract notion than ideas grounded through experiences. Even those teachers who explained

gender in ways that were not merely sex based did not demonstrate this same definition when

supplying concrete examples of how gender played out in their classrooms, reverting instead to

the gender/sex synonymity. For this group of respondents, then, any conception of “gender” is

beleaguered with notions of sex differentiation.

4.2 GENDER: MEANINGS AND PRACTICES

As mentioned above, teachers provided sex-based examples of gender when discussing

how gender manifests itself in the classroom environment. Interestingly, however, none of the

teachers interviewed took a “gender neutral” position when describing their teaching styles in the

classroom, a perspective that has been demonstrated by teachers in words (though not through

their actions) in other studies of gender in the classroom (Garrahy, 2001). I nstead, the vast

majority of participants discussed making conscious decisions in lesson planning, behavior

direction, and student-teacher interactions with the intention of appealing to what they perceived

31
to be the sex-based differences between their students, or in order to create a gender-equalizing

environment.

Discussions of lesson planning quickly brought to light some of the perceived binary

qualities of gender held by t he teachers. The early childhood education teachers created loose

activity plans for the day, with time divided between activities that utilized fine and gross motor

skills, sensory exploration, and more; children are then expected to choose which activities

appeal to them, with less formal instruction and direction than is common in the elementary and

secondary levels. Thus, it was the elementary and secondary teachers who conversed the most

about conscious curriculum decisions they took to involve either their male or female students—

whomever was considered least likely to be interested in the lesson at hand. T hough these

decisions were made in the spirit of generating equal interest or equal gender equality in terms of

participation, all of the tactics used by the teachers were in order to benefit the male students;

none of the conscious decisions were made with the female students in mind.

In the interview with a teacher of gifted students in language arts, “gender” distinctions

manifested themselves twofold in her classroom lesson planning. I n discussing how to garner

interest in literature amongst students, the teacher noted:

Now when I taught reading/language arts I tried to select literature that was going to

appeal to the boys, to get them involved in it, like Into Thin Air, so we could talk about athletics

and extreme sports and they could do research on that and be interested in that. (Participant #2,

Jan. 15, 2013)

In yet another example provided, the teacher stated that she would turn sentence

diagramming into a competitive game, claiming, “they [students] loved it. I would try to make it

32
a little interesting…the boys liked that. Now the girls liked it too, they normally liked it. But the

boys really did” (Participant #2, J an. 15, 2013) . A nother respondent, a middle school English

teacher, noted that he would often ignore curriculum-suggested collaborative classroom projects,

opting instead for individual work, explaining “the hassle is just too much…even though the kids

like to work together, and I wish they could do more work together, it takes so long to place the

males in groups where they don’t cause trouble…by the time everyone is settled, class would be

over. It’s too much” (Participant #14, Feb. 2, 2013).

These examples are revealing: they demonstrate the teacher’s belief that boys have less

interest than girls in literature and reading unless the topic is somehow connected to traditionally

“male” themes, and that competition through games is a mechanism through which to garner

boys’ attention to mundane activities, such as sentence diagramming. As well, by o mitting

collaborative projects from the English classroom, the other respondent is allowing his classroom

curriculum to be dictated by t he misbehavior of some male students. An ethnographic study

conducted by Garrahy (2001) also found that teachers made pedagogical decisions based on

student interests, purposefully selecting what the teacher believed to be male themes, such as

sports, in order to facilitate male participation, sometimes to the detriment of female students (in

the example given by Garrahy, the school’s library only had books on famous female dancers,

gymnasts, and figure skaters, eliminating the possibility of finding non-traditional female role

models on which to write).

When asked what activities they chose to engage the female students, the elementary and

middle school teachers appeared to be at a loss for words, citing discussions, asking questions,

writing stories, and “making their papers pretty” as examples. These activities, however, were

33
not selected to target the female students, but were merely activities already a part of the lesson

plan that the girls seemed to enjoy.

None of the high school teachers ever discussed creating lesson plans to generate interest

from either sex. This may be because there is greater pressure on high school teachers to follow

state and federal guidelines for accountability purposes, and therefore the teachers have less

leeway in their lesson planning. T he high school teachers interviewed also worked in lower

socio-economic areas, where issues of race and poverty are more prevalent than those of gender,

perhaps contributing to why topics were not selected to solicit interest based on gender.

Behavior direction—or redirection—was brought up by f ive of the eight early

childhood education teachers interviewed, as a means through which to channel “gendered”

behaviors into productive activities. Two teachers explained that in order to regain a sense of

calm in the classroom, male students were often split up into different activities, or they would

purposely regroup the children into gender heterogeneous groups in the hopes of “lowering the

volume,” or “quieting the boys” (Participant #18, Mar. 17, 2013; Participant #10, Mar. 10, 2013).

Girls were not mentioned as having to be redirected in order to control behavioral issues;

however, both girls and boys were discussed as having strong activity preferences, which

generally conveyed different teacher perspectives about “gendered” behavior.

Girls were noted to enjoy arts and crafts, writing center, and dramatic play; these

activities were associated with concentration, quiet, creativity, fine motor skills, and social skills.

The boys, on the other hand, were generally discussed as participating more in blocks, floor toys,

and science center; they were noted to be louder, more physical, and more interested in the

“abstract” concepts supposedly reinforced through these activities (see Appendices D and E for

common descriptors of boys and girls).

34
 It should be noted that although the teachers made these generalizations during the

interviews, each teacher provided one example of a girl or a boy w ho fell outside of these

“gendered” behavior and activity preferences in their discussion. These students were not treated

as aberrations in the discussions, but they were considered exceptions to general patterns of

gendered behaviors. One early education teacher noted, “on average, the boys want to play with

the cars and trucks more, but there’s a girl who loves to play with trucks too. And she doesn’t

mind that she plays alone sometimes, she just loves the trucks” (Participant #18, Mar. 17, 2013).

Similarly, a boy w as mentioned who spent the majority of his days in arts and crafts, a locus

usually dominated by the female students.

Finally, the participants discussed engaging (or witnessing other teachers engage) in

different student-teacher interactions based on the pupil’s sex. One participant explained that as

a counselor, she approached male and female students differently to appeal to them, stating:

We do treat them differently in terms of when you’re talking to them. When you talk to

girls, you go with the, “come on…you’re 13 years old, you’re so mature, you’re older, you’ve

got to think about your future. You don’t want to mess around with a boy who’s going to get

you in trouble, and these boys are babies.” And I did tell them that a lot. And that is gender-

biased but it’s true. A 13 year-old boy is like a 10 year-old. (Participant #1, Dec. 26, 2012)

The participant noted that boys, on the other hand, were not approached at all regarding

their behavior in relationships with female students, because the middle school counselors did

not consider them mature enough for a reasonable discussion.

Another example of differential treatment based on perceived gender differences arose in

discussions with various participants concerning discipline. Female students, it was noted, tend

to be less of a discipline problem in the classroom, but when discipline is necessary, require a

35
different style than that required of male students. One teacher commented, “my girls can be

conniving…so they can get away with more than the boys do. B ut when you do t ry to talk to

them about it, they all emotional and defensive” (Participant #14, F eb. 2, 2013) . In a similar

vein, another participant stated:

Boys got more [disciplinary] attention than girls did. Now, was that because they were

more outspoken, or was it because the teachers didn’t want…that teachers thought it [discipline]

was too harsh a punishment for the girls? Girls [were] more tactful…and if that’s how they were

in most situations you could see how the boys would get into more trouble. (Participant #2, Jan.

15, 2013)

The same teacher went on to note that unlike boys, when girls were disciplined, they held

on to an “attitude” or resentment about the disciplinary action that could last days after the

incident, leading the participant to suggest that perhaps this “attitude” contributed to some

teachers preferring interactions with male students more than female students.

The comments above regarding differential student-teacher interactions illuminate the

various ways in which teachers perceive, and act upon, “ gender” differences, and how these

differences are bifurcated between male and female students. As the middle school counselor’s

statements demonstrate, female students are considered to be more mature and reasonable than

their male counterparts; however, due to this perception, girls are burdened with a greater share

of responsibility in their role within their young relationships. This implies that male students

may not held accountable by teachers and administrators for their actions in the realm of early

relationships and their (sometimes very serious) consequences.

Regarding discipline, the participants’ statements reflect the prevailing data on

differential gender treatment in classrooms. T eachers are shown to give male students more

36
attention, both positive and negative (Sadker & Zittleman, 2009); boys also receive more

disciplinary action than girls. What is interesting about the participants comments in this study is

their reasoning behind variations in discipline: girls are noted to be more “conniving” and

“sneaky” in their misbehavior (Participant #14, Feb. 2, 2013; Participant #2, Jan. 15, 2013), and

teachers are hypothesized to be more fearful about offending the sensibilities of their female

students in taking disciplinary action. H owever, these opinions on “ gender” differences and

disciplinary action came from teachers working in schools servicing relatively affluent areas;

their generalizations could be correlated to the intersectionality between gender and class, a topic

that certainly requires greater study, but is outside the purview of this research endeavor.

The final aspect of significance in terms of gender manifestations in the classroom

environment actually involved the gendered interactions within the institution of education:

between various levels of staff interactions, and regarding the female-concentrated nature of

education. R egarding the former, both female and male teachers noted the different dynamics

apparent in teaching establishments; however, only female teachers commented on what they

perceived to be a negative stigma regarding the teaching profession, and its implications in

furthering women’s autonomy in Western society.

The teaching profession, which at the early childhood, elementary, and secondary levels

is heavily female—in 2011, only 16% of public school teachers in pre-K through 12th grade

were male (Feistritzer, 2011)—creates a different work dynamic for the professionals involved,

both males and females. Surprisingly, none of the male teachers professed having any problem

with being in the minority. The male teacher who had been in the profession the longest noted

that “there’s a lot more males in education than when I first started…you know, you ha d a

37
different peer group at school, at school you came in and didn’t talk about the game last night,

you talked about other things, your kids, your family” (Participant #11, Mar. 30, 2013).

However, some of the female teachers discussed having problems when working with

male teachers or administrators. When discussing some of the changing dynamics between male

and female teachers over time, one participant noted, “the male teachers were more self-

important. The men that were supposed to be in charge of peer mediation, they didn’t really

want to do that, they wanted to be administrators. So they got off on t he fact that they got to

carry a walkie-talkie, and tell people what to do” (Participant #1, D ec. 26, 2012) . A nother

female teacher commented that the males in her school would “suck up” to the administration,

but were “less than helpful” in team building with female coworkers (Participant #20, Apr. 1,

2013).

Although these data are hardly conclusive, they demonstrate a fracture in the gendered

interaction between school faculty members, and a dynamic that could easily translate into

student classroom dynamics, with negative repercussions. As indicated by t he data, there is a

sense of disconnection between the male and female staff, which stems from perceptions of

differences in pedagogy and professional behavior. I f gender inequities are the root of these

negative views amongst the female staff, then it is more likely that they harbor resentments,

which may manifest itself in differential treatment of students.

4.3 GENDER SENSITIVITY TRAINING

38
 None of the 20 teachers interviewed had had any formal gender sensitivity training, either

in a higher education or in professional development setting. A lthough all of the participants

professed having an interest in gaining greater practical knowledge on the subject of gender in

the classroom, only five of the teachers had pursued this on their own time: s ome through

reading articles and books related to gender and gender sensitivity, and one through a seminar

offered for teaching professionals in Pennsylvania.

An issue of importance here is what kind of gender sensitivity training should be offered;

as all teachers expressed a d esire to have a greater understanding, whether or not gender

sensitivity should be addressed through the school systems is not an issue. Although the

perception of “gender” to be synonymous with “sex” prevailed among the participants, other

concepts, such as sexual identity, were also discussed; and as the following section demonstrates,

bullying is perceived to be a looming issue in school systems today, suggesting that a broader

conception of gender should be addressed in any formal training given to education

professionals.

4.4 PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE OF GENDER ISSUES IN EDUCATION

As mentioned above, the participants all shared an interest in learning more about gender

sensitivity and gender in the classroom; each saw value in fostering gender-equitable classroom

experiences and opportunities for children. However, when asked what other equity topics were

39
an issue in today’s school systems, the teachers had a h ost of other concerns that they saw as

outranking gender in terms of importance. Many of the participants discussed either race or

poverty (or the intersectionality of the two) as being of greatest concern; other issues included

obesity, “going green,” bullying, and technology in the classroom. So while there was a

consensus among the participants in the need to address ongoing gender inequities in education,

other problems were considered more urgent.

Figure 1. Issues of Importance Based on Teacher Responses

4.5 PARENTAL STANDPOINT

40
 A theme that emerged throughout the interviews with some respondents was the

influence of being a parent on their perspectives on gender and gender in the classroom. In most

of the interviews, participants did not mention parents ever bringing gender issues to their

attention as teachers. However, many of the teachers interviewed who were also parents brought

up gender concerns they had with their own children in the educational system.

The respondents who expressed their concerns almost always did so on behalf of their

daughters. One topic that was brought up multiple times was that of teachers only

complimenting girls on their outward appearances. On discussing maintaining a balance as an

administrator in the same facility her daughter attends, one teacher noted:

I train staff that come into this building, but I know staff are human, and I know that all

of these things that we’re talking about are engrained in them. You know, “your dress is cute,

your dress is pretty,” or for boys, “you’re tough, don’t cry,” or “you’re so fast, you’re so strong”

we train staff not to use these labels as they might, but then…a lot of them do. A s a parent, I

don’t bring it up when I hear it said [to my daughter]…I know they’re human. A nd it’s not

going to kill my kid that someone calls her cute, or her dress is pretty. And we do none of that at

home…but [the daughter] has to wear every color of the rainbow every day, and she has to look

beautiful, every day. And where is she getting these messages, that that’s what’s important?

(Participant #12, Mar. 14, 2013)

Clearly, the balance between being a teacher and a parent is a delicate one, and one that is

complicated by the external messages from teachers that become internalized by their children—

messages that may contain gendered notions that the parent-as-teacher had consciously avoided

in their upbringing practices. On a similar note, another teacher commented that it bothered her

to hear other teachers complimenting her daughter on her clothes, stating “it shouldn’t be hard to

41
change that [behavior]…and it’s not the worst thing you can do it to a kid, it really isn’t. But if

you only ever say that to a kid…when did they lose sight of the fact that they’re more than just

what they’re wearing?” (Participant #3, Feb.14, 2013).

The respondent’s final statement clearly demonstrates the major difficulty these

parents-as-teachers have with the focus on their daughter’s outward appearance: t hey are

concerned that their daughters will internalize the gendered message that their looks are

paramount. P erhaps these are concerns for all parents with daughters; however, as teachers,

these parents in particular are exposed to the gender-specific messages targeting boys and girls in

the educational system. Thus, these respondents revealed a heightened awareness (as teachers)

and investment (as parents) in the gendered interactions that take place in the classroom, a trait

that is not generated in other professional environments.

Respondents also discussed how becoming a parent influenced their conceptions

of the sources of gender-specific behaviors and activity preferences exhibited by s tudents. In

one such discussion, a teacher commented on how her notions of gender and “nature vs. nurture”

changed:

Honestly before I had kids of my own, I believed nurture created the [gender]

stereotypes, when now I know that’s not true. L ike my sister has two little boys, and her

household is completely different than ours [with two girls]. The girls can just sit and draw for

hours on e nd, and in hers, the boys move from area to area and there’s so much jumping and

screaming, and it’s…they’re more active. I don’t think it’s arbitrary. (Participant #12, Mar. 14,

2013)

Thus, conceptions of gender as being biologically determined became solidified after the

teacher had children of her own.

42
 Similarly, another respondent noted that before he had a son, he never considered the

origin of what he deemed the “rough and tumble boys” and “slightly calmer girls.” Afterwards,

however, he began to attribute these characteristics as innate, stating:

We never pushed him [the son] one way or another…there was always a b alance of

sports, arts, and general play in the home. But he and all his friends…loved to play rough

outside and inside. We had to get rid of fragile things [in the home]…and I began to notice these

similarities with other boys that I had in my classes, too. (Participant #11, Mar. 30, 2013)

Again, it appears that having children crystallized very binary notions of sex and gender

amongst the teachers participating in this study.

What the statements above show is that these teachers, as parents, have come to

embrace a different concept of gender than they first held before becoming parents. I nitially

believing nurture, not nature, influenced gendered behavior came to be replaced with the notion

that biological sex differences determined gender differentiated behaviors. Thus, these teachers

may be particularly susceptible to fostering what they perceive to be traditional gendered

behaviors in their classroom, instead of allowing their students to engage in truly individual

behavior.

Perceived influences on gendered behavior was also a t opic covered in conversations

about the role of being a parent and teacher. One interviewee commented on the role of the

media and marketing when asked about her views on progress towards gender equality, stating:

I think that in terms of…what society does to very young children in terms of kind of

forcing information upon t hem that are very gender-specific. W hether it’s clothes, makeup,

Barbie or tattoos that to me has a v ery female-oriented thing. A nd then all the tough boy

stuff…and I think we expose children to this at a much younger age, then [they] have a

43
predisposition to be…to not thinking that they can be as equal as another gender. (Participant #3,

Feb. 14, 2013)

This participant went on to discuss how she had initially tried to keep her daughter away

from certain dolls and toys, fearful of what influence the female-oriented messages would have

on her behavior; nevertheless, she eventually gave up, explaining that it was too difficult with the

peer-pressure on her daughter from other students to have the same toys.

Another teacher described having a similar experience: as a parent, she opted to

omit Disney movies and toys from her household, because of what she perceived to be

undesirable messages about the roles and capabilities of girls and women. H owever, she

commented, “it was futile. She knows all the princess names and what they can do…that’s what

they [the girls] play at school. A nd she plays with the girls, so she knows all the princesses”

(Participant #15, Feb. 15, 2013).

These responses highlight how parents-as-teachers conceive gender to be

influenced, both by the media, and the children’s social environment. As discussed earlier, some

of the teachers began to perceive gender as more of an innate characteristic after having children;

these gendered traits are then, by t heir accounts, reinforced through the media, marketing, and

school interactions. As well, the comments portray a kind of hands-off approach to gender: as

parents, the respondents see nature as being more important than the nurture of home life; as

teachers, they see p eers and media as b eing more influential than other factors in the school

environment.

44
 5.0 CONCLUSION

This chapter will provide a summary of the findings of the research. As well, suggestions

will be made for further research based on the limitations of this study as well as the topics

uncovered that need to be studied with a broader scope. Finally, the implications of the research

will be examined at the research, theory, and practice levels.

5.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The teachers in the study made meaning about gender in various ways. A ll the

respondents conceived of gender to be related to the biological distinctions between the sexes in

some way, whether they overtly stated this as their definition or if this theme emerged through

their concrete examples of gender in the classroom. H owever, some of the participants had

expanded conceptions of gender that included sexual identity and non-binary identifiers, such as

personality and individuality.

The interviewees attributed their understandings of gender to a number of factors.

Socialization and Western society’s expectations for boys and girls were considered by most to

be of major significance in shaping their beliefs about the meaning of gender. However, parents
45
and family members’ views on gender in regard to sexual identity were also mentioned by some

as having a greater influence than the messages of broader society. Other influences, including

teachers and the media, were mentioned by many as being instrumental in the shaping of gender,

but were not noted to be of significance in their individual notions as to the meaning of gender

itself.

The conception of gender insofar as it related to sex was perceived as translating

into the classroom in a number of ways. M any of the teachers described their students’

characteristics as b eing either attributed to males or females, with boys being seen as more

active, “rough and tumble,” disobedient, and fun, whereas girls were seen as more helpful,

attentive, obedient, and detail-oriented. T he teachers also noted binary gender preferences in

terms of activity choices: girls liked discussions, arts and crafts, dramatic play, and social

activities, whereas boys liked building, sports, games, and “abstract” subjects such as science.

In conversations regarding perceptions of gender in the classroom, teachers

mentioned making a few conscious pedagogical decisions to alleviate perceived tensions in the

classroom environment created by gender differences. The first involved lesson planning: some

teachers described choosing specific topics to appeal to the boys in their classes, or omitting

certain activities in order to maintain a calm otherwise disrupted by the behavior of some male

students. Other decisions included behavior redirection; male students would be placed in

gender-heterogeneous groups in order to curb negative behaviors, or put in activities that would

best suit their “active” ways. Teachers also explained the use of differentiated ways of speaking

and interacting with students based on pe rceived gender differences in order to be more

effective.

46
 None of the teachers reported ever receiving any type of gender sensitivity

training, either through their formal preparation to become an educator or by their employer.

Some of the respondents noted having taken a workshop or done reading about the subject of

gender equity in the classroom on their own time, however. All of the participants claimed that

they consider gender sensitivity training necessary and beneficial to classroom dynamics, with

special interests in learning about neurological differences between boys and girls, behavior

management techniques, and strategies on how to foster gender-equitable environments in the

classroom.

Finally, the teachers discussed the perceived relevancy of gender equality in

today’s educational system, especially in terms of other issues that have surfaced in recent years.

Although none of the teachers considered gender equity to have been reached in American

education, the topic was not deemed to be as prominent as other inequalities. R ace and

poverty—and the intersectionality of the two—were most often cited as b eing of greater

importance in the school. Other issues, such as “going green,” technology in the classroom, and

obesity, were mentioned as being of rising importance in today’s classrooms.

5.2 IMPLICATIONS

This study has a number of implications. S ince the scope of the study was narrow,

addressing only 20 respondents in Pennsylvania and Maryland, further studies are necessary to

address some of the themes and questions that arose throughout the research process. O ther

47
implications, including those regarding critical theory and educational practices, will also be

discussed.

The limited scope of this study should be addressed. I deally, further research should

examine how teachers across the entire U.S. make meaning about gender, in the hopes that any

mores and norms of regions might emerge, further illuminating the topic. As well, since children

express themselves differently throughout the developmental stages, and because they are

gradually exposed to greater media and socialization processes over time, examining teacher

conceptions of gender by school level would provide greater depth of meaning to future findings,

as teacher conceptions might be related to their students’ development stage.

A more extensive mixed-methods approach might provide fruitful results as well.

Although some quantitative data were collected in this study, the analysis of both quantitative

and qualitative data simultaneously proved unsuccessful due to time constraints. C ombining

quantitative factors, such as age, race, place of upbringing, political views, and major in higher

education are all variables which, when combined with qualitative data, may allow further

insight into gender conceptions.

Teachers’ conceptions of “gender” merits further research in order to generate more

substantial data for theory and practice-based implications to be determined. The findings from

this study suggest that teachers largely conceive of gender in a way that is firmly grounded in

biological sex differences, with some grappling with more abstract notions that take into account

sexuality and individual identity. T his lack of clarity and attention to the understanding of

gender has detrimental effects on gender equality in classroom practices.

The concrete examples of praxis given demonstrate a lack of intentionality on behalf of

the school staff; instead of accounting for individuality within gender, teachers show a pattern of

48
behavior that is undergirded by bi nary notions of gender differences by sex. These patterns of

practice highlight the real need for gender sensitivity training in U.S. schools today. Although

issues such as race and poverty were considered more important to the respondents, the

classroom behaviors discussed by the teachers indicate a picture of ongoing gender inequality in

the school system. N ot only are factors such as sexuality and individuality generally omitted

from notions gender in the classroom, differential treatment by sex is prevalent, and not

considered an issue by those within the system to generate substantive change—the teachers.

Without the training necessary to create changes in daily praxis, the teachers are

theoretically contributing to gender oppression twofold. F irst, the teachers are failing to build

educational environments that foster individuality, and instead are providing those that

perpetuate an inequitable gender structure. S econd, this failure crystallizes gender inequalities

amongst teaching staff, administration, and parents, as the largely female teaching population has

internalized and practiced gender inequality in their professional lives. T herefore, it is

imperative that gender sensitivity trainings become an established part of the educational system

in order for action to be taken in the classroom that affects change; new concepts of gender and

identity “cannot be purely intellectual but must involve action; nor can it be limited to mere

activism, but must include serious reflection: only then will it be a praxis” (Freire, 1970, p. 47).

Differential discipline by teachers according to gender is a subject that requires

immediate research because of its practical implications. Studies show that boys receive more

discipline (including suspensions and expulsions), are more often in remedial classes, and are

more likely to be treated for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (Sommers, 2000). T his

study demonstrated that teachers perceived disciplining boys as more necessary because of their

behavior, but also viewed the male students as having a stronger disposition; they could “handle

49
it” better than the girls. However, the considerable data from other research suggest that boys

are not handling their lion’s share of discipline well—their retention and dropout rates are much

higher than their female counterparts. T hus, the conception that male and female students

require differential treatment in regard to discipline necessitates further study in order to correct

the disparities of educational effects on the practical level.

Outside of disciplinary action, the variance in teacher-student interactions based on t he

students’ gender has other important implications for educational practices. As the example

proffered by one of the respondents suggests, girls are approached more often by staff regarding

their behavior in young relationships. Unfortunately, as in the school mentioned in the example

given by t he respondent, young s tudents’ sexual activity in these relationships has led to

pregnancies, early marriages, and increased dropouts for the students in question. If only the

female students are being approached by t he staff to discuss the consequences of these

relationships, then half of the equation is being ignored, contributing to the permeation of this

social problem in middle and high schools. In order for this issue to be properly managed,

teachers must first address their perceptions about gender differences, thereby enabling them to

approach both female and male students. Until then, the responsibility of early relationships is

entirely placed on female students, perpetuating a significant gender imbalance.

One issue that emerged in the research, that of the parental standpoint, also has important

implications. F urther research should examine how parents-as-teachers differ than teachers

without children in their interactions with students of different sexes, as teachers in this study

demonstrated having different understandings of gender based on their dual role as parents. In

terms of practice, parents-as-teachers might require different interventions in gender sensitivity

50
training, if the views demonstrated in this study (that gender differences are directly related to

the child’s sex) hold true elsewhere around the country.

This study demonstrates the importance of critical theory, and socially engaged research

generally, to the research field. A s noted by Harding and Norberg (2005), “socially engaged

research—that is, research that holds itself ethically and politically accountable for its social

consequences—can in many instances produce knowledge” (p. 2010). A lthough positivism

usually has more clout in the U.S. educational system—especially with attention paid to its use

in accountability measures—constructivist accounts are evermore important in order to report the

very human aspects of education and its enduring inequalities. Without such accounts, inequities

such as gender-differentiated treatment might continue unabated, rendered invisible by positivist

normative data.

51
 APPENDIX A: GENDER EQUITY IN EDUCATION INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Gender Equity in Education: Interview QuestionsBackground:

1. Age:
2. Race:
3. Personal educational background:
4. Teaching history (school levels, age groups, and subjects, not school names):
5. Age when first started teaching:
6. Age of retirement (if applicable)

Definitions:

1. How do you define gender?

2. Do you think there is a difference between gender equality and equity? If so, why? Is
the difference applicable in all fields, or only in education?
3. How did you come by these definitions? Were they formulated by personal experiences,
readings, or professional development?

Experiences:

1. When you first started teaching (or working in education), was establishing gender equity
in schools discussed (among faculty or parents)?
a. If it was discussed, in what way?
b. What words were used?
2. Have there been times during your teaching career that you have noticed gender equity
issues in practice (e.g. differential treatment, subject tracking, etc.)?
a. If so, please describe.
b. When did these incidences of gender equity in practice occur?
3. Have parents ever discussed concerns about gender equity in the classroom with you?
a. If so, what were their concerns?
b. Do you recall your response?
c. Did you think the parents were justified?
4. Have you had gender sensitivity training either through your school or through another
form of professional development?
a. If so, could you please describe some of the major themes of the development?
b. Did you think the development was helpful?
c. Did you implement any of the suggestions into your classroom practices?

52
 5. In your experience, do interventions affect gender equity in practice in the classroom?
6. What indicators of gender equity do you notice in the classroom?
7. Do you think that gender roles are changing?
a. If so, how?
b. Does it change the dynamics of the classroom?
8. Do you think that gender is a ‘hot’ topic in education today? Please explain.
9. Do you think that gender equity should be at the forefront of education today?
a. Why or why not?
10. Do you think that gender equity has been reached in American education?
11. What about in other areas of the world?
12. Do you think your personal upbringing, and experiences within the education system as
a student influences your perceptions about gender equity as an educator?
13. Do you think that gender equity can be addressed in institutions (such as within the
school)?
14. Do you think that as an educator, you have the agency to influence gender equity
dynamics in the classroom?
15. Do you think being an educator gives you a different perspective on gender equity
outside the classroom? Please explain.

Opinions:

1. How would you describe your female students? Your male students?
2. Do you find females have a certain learning style? The males?
3. Do you think the positioning of sections for activities in the classroom contributes to
gender stereotypes and/or separation?
4. Do you think that male and female students should be treated the same, or do you
think they have different needs in the classroom?
5. Do you think your perceptions about gender affect your attitudes and behaviors in the
classroom/school environment?
6. Do you think gender equity programs and/or teacher training are still necessary?
7. Do you think that spending resources on such training is a worthwhile expenditure?
Policy

1. Are you familiar with the MDGs and EFA?

2. Do you think their goals for gender equity are realistic? Why or why not?
3. Do you think the indicators used to measure gender equity in education are appropriate?
Why or why not?

53
 APPENDIX B: Introductory Script

The purpose of this research study is to determine how educators have made meaning

about gender equity in education over their years of teaching. For that reason, I will be

conducting semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with educators from a variety of teaching

backgrounds from the Western Pennsylvania and Maryland regions. I f you are willing to

participate, the interview questions will address your background (e.g. age, race, educational

background, teaching history), as well as your understanding of gender equity in education, as it

relates to your personal experiences as an educator. T here are no foreseeable risks associated

with this project, nor are there any direct benefits to you. P articipants will not receive payment

for participation. I will reduce the risk of a breach of confidentiality by not recording any

information that would identify you. All information will be kept confidential throughout; all

divulged information will be correlated to a number for each individual, so confidentiality will

be maintained, and results will be kept under lock and key. Your participation is voluntary, and

you may withdraw from the study at any time. This study is being conducted by Kate Schechter,

who may be contacted at 443.681.0741, if you have any questions.

54
 APPENDIX C: Participant Information

Teacher No. Sex Current Originally School

teaching from Level/Subject
location
1 F MD PA MS/ Counselor,
Special
Education
2 F PA NY EL*, MS/
Language Arts,
Gifted
3 F PA PA EL, EE
4 F PA PA EE*
5 M MD MD MS*, HS/Art
6 M MD NC EL,
MS/English
7 F PA FL EE
8 F PA PA EE*
9 F PA PA EE*
10 F PA VI EE*
11 M MD MD EL, MS,
HS/Physical
Education
12 F PA PA EE*
13 F MD NY MS/Physical
Education
14 M MD Canada EL, MS/
English
15 F MD MI EL, HS/Math,
Chemistry
16 F MD MD EL
17 F PA Trinidad and EE*
Tobago
18 F PA PA EE*
19 F MD RI MS/ Counselor
20 F MD MD HS/Math

Key

EE Early Education
EL Elementary School
MS Middle School
HS High School

*denotes private school

55
 APPENDIX D: BOY DESCRIPTORS

* The larger the word appears, the greater its frequency in interview discussions.

56
 APPENDIX E: GIRL DESCRIPTORS

* The larger the word appears, the greater its frequency in interview discussions.

57
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Acker, S. (1988). Gender and resistance. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 9(3), 307-322.

Aikman, S., Halai, A., & Rubagiza, J. (2011). Conceptualising gender equality in research on education
quality. Comparative Education, 47(1), 15.

Aitchison, C. C. (2005). Feminist and gender research in sport and leisure management: Understanding
the social-cultural nexus of gender-power relations. Journal of Sport Management, 19, 422-441.

Allard, A. C. (2004). Speaking of gender: teachers' metaphorical constructs of male and female students.
Gender and Education, 16(3), 347-363.

American Association of University Women. (1999). Gender gaps: Where schools still fail our children.
New York, NY: Marlowe and Company.

Berekashvili, N. (2012). The role of gender-biased perceptions in teacher-student interaction.

Psychology of Language and Communication, 16(1), 39-51.

Birks, M., Chapman, Y., & Francis, K. (2008). Memoing in qualitative research: Probing data and
processes. Journal of Research in Nursing, 13, 68-75.

Buchmann, C., DiPrete, T. A., & McDaniel, A. (2007). Gender inequalities in education. Annual Review
of Sociology, 34.

Cavoukian, R., & Olfman, S. (Eds.). (2006). Child honoring: How to turn this world around. Westport,
CT: Praeger.

Coffey, A. J., & Atkinson, P. A. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research
strategies. London, UK: Sage Publications, Inc.

Conrad, C. F., & Serlin, R. C. (2011). The SAGE handbook for research in education (2nd ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Damarin, S., & Erchick, D. B. (2010). Toward clarifying the meanings of "gender" in mathematics
education research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(4), 310-323.

DiCicco-Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical Education,

58
 40, 314-321.

Duffy, J., Warren, K., & Walsh, M. (2001). Classroom interactions: Gender of teacher, gender of
student, and classroom subject. Sex Roles, 45(9/10), 579-593.

Erden, F. (2004). Early childhood teachers' attitudes toward gender roles and toward discipline.
Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 27, 83-90.

Feistritzer, C. E. (2011). Profile of teachers in the U.S. 2011 (pp. 1-58). Washington, DC: National
Center for Eduction Information.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London, England: Penguin Books.

Garrahy, D. A. (2001). Three third-grade teachers' gender-related beliefs and behavior. The Elementary
School Journal, 102(1), 81-94.

Glasser, H. M., & III, J. P. S. (2008). On the vague meaning of "gender" in education research: The
problem, its sources, and recommendations for practice. Educational Researcher, 37(6), 343-
350.

Gosselin, C. (2007). Philosophy and the role of teacher reflections on constructing gender. Educational
Foundations, 21(3-4), 39.

Hancock, A-M. (2007). Intersectionality: Abstract. Politics and Gender, 3, 229-231.

Harding, S., & Norberg, K. (2005). New feminist approaches to social science methodologies: An
introduction. Signs, 30(4), 2009-2015.

Jones, S., & Myhill, D. (2004). Seeing things differently: Teachers' constructions of underachievement.
Gender and Education, 16(4), 531-546.

Kaufman, M. (2004). Transforming our interventions for gender equality by addressing and involving
men and boys: A framework for analysis and action. In S. Ruxton (Ed.), Gender equality and
men: Learning from practice. Oxford, UK: Oxfam GB.

Kellner, D. (2003). Toward a critical theory of education. Democracy and Nature, 9, 51-64.

Kimmel, M. S. (2000). The gendered society. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Linn, S. (2004). Consuming kids: Protecting our children from the onslaught of marketing and
advertising. New York, NY: Anchor Books.

Ma, X. (2008). Within-school gender gaps in reading, mathematics, and science literacy. Comparative
Education Review, 52(3), 437-460.

59
Mears, C. L. (2009). Interviewing for education and social science research. New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.

Orenstein, P. (2011). Cinderella ate my daughter: Dispatches from the front lines of the new girlie-girl
culture. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Riegle-Crumb, C., & Humphries, M. (2012). Exploring bias in math teachers' perceptions of students'
ability by gender and race/ethnicity. Gender and Society, 26(2), 290-322.

Robinson, K. H. (1992). Class-room discipline: Power, resistance and gender. A look at teacher
perspectives. Gender and Education, 4(3), 273-288.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How our schools cheat girls. New York, NY:
Touchstone.

Sadker, D., Sadker, M., & Zittleman, K. R. (2009). Still failing at fairness: How gender bias cheats girls
and boys in school and what we can do about it. New York, NY: Scribner.

Sanders, R. (2000). Gender equity in the classroom: An arena for correspondence. Women's Studies
Quarterly, 28(3/4), 182-193.

Schacter, D. L., Norman, K. A., & Koutstall, W. (1998). The cognitive neuroscience of constructive
memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 289-318.

Seale, C., & Silverman, D. (1997). Ensuring rigour in qualitative research. European Journal of Public
Health, 7, 379-384.

Sommers, C. H. (2000). The war against boys. The Atlantic Monthly, 59-74.

Stitt, B. (1988). Building gender fairness in schools. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Subrahmanian, R. (2005). Gender equality in education: Definitions and Measurements. International

Journal of Educational Development, 25, 12.

Tatar, M., & Emmanuel, G. (2001). Teachers' perceptions of their students' gender roles. The Journal of
Educational Research, 94(4), 215-224.

Tiedemann, J. (2002). Teachers' gender stereotypes as determinants of teacher perceptions in elementary

school mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 50, 49-62.

Todor, I. (2010). Gender in education: Teacher's perspective. The International Journal of

Interdisciplinary Social Studies, 4(12), 45-52.

60
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (2004). Gender sensitivity: A
training manual for sensitizing education managers, curriculum and material developers and
media professionals to gender concerns. In C. Joerger & E. Taylor (Eds.), (pp. 1-197). Paris,
France: UNESCO.

Unterhalter, E., & North, A. (2011). Responding to the gender and education Millennium Development
Goals in South Africa and Kenya: Reflections on education rights, gender equality, and global
justice. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 41(4), 16. doi:
10.1080/03057925.2011.581516

U.S. Department of State. (2012). Fact sheet: Promoting gender equality to achieve our national
security and foreign policy objectives.

Warren, H. (2007). Using gender-analysis frameworks: Theoretical and practical reflections. Gender
and Development, 15(2), 187-198.

Weiler, K. (1988). Women teaching for change: Gender, class, and power. South Hadley, MA: Bergin
and Garvey Publishers, Inc.

61